Judgment : SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following reliefs: “In the premises aforesaid it is respectfully prayed that your Lordships would graciously be pleased to call for the records, issue a rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ should not be issued declaring the proposed and contemplated action of the respondents, more particularly the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to evict the petitioners and to demolish their building situated in Dag No. 13 of Patta No.109 of Village- North Jalukbari, Mouza- Jalukbari, in the district of Kamrup(M), Assam as illegal, null and void with direction to allow the petitioners to live peacefully in their respective houses standing over the plot of land measuring 8 Bighas 1 katha 14 Laches of aforesaid Dag and Patta of the said revenue village and/or writ in the nature of prohibition should not be issued restraining/prohibiting the respondents from carrying out any eviction drive against the petitioners and their peaceful possession of their lawful landed properties and/or pleased to issue any such further or other order or orders as to your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case so as to give full and complete relief to the petitioners and after hearing the parties and perusal of the materials on record be pleased to make such rule absolute. During pendency of the application an interim order be passed restraining/ prohibiting the respondents and their men and agents from carrying out any eviction right against the petitioners over their plot of land measuring 8 Bighas 1 katha 14 Lechas situated in Dag No. 13 of Patta No. 109 of Village- North Jalukbari, Mouza Jalukbari, in the district of Kamrup(M), Assam.” 2. As per the facts projected, 37 nos. of petitioners representing their respective families have joined together in this petition. According to the petitioners, they had purchased certain lands measuring in total 8 bighas, 1 katha, 14 lechas pertaining to Dag No. 13 of KP Patta No. 109 of Village-North Jalukbari, Mouza-Jalukbari in the district of Kamrup (M), Assam. It is contended that Patta No. 109 contains in total 64 bighas, 1 katha, 6 lechas out of which, Dag No. 13 contains 60 bighas, 2 kathas, 7 lechas. It is contended that Patta No. 109 contains in total 64 bighas, 1 katha, 6 lechas out of which, Dag No. 13 contains 60 bighas, 2 kathas, 7 lechas. Out of Dag No. 13, an order was passed by the respondent no. 4 on 28.02.2001 whereby 47 bighas, 16 lechas of land was made Sarkari land and the remaining land measuring 13 bighas, 1 katha, 11 lechas of Dag No. 13 remained as patta land and the petitioners claim ownership with possession over a plot of land of 8 bighas, 1 katha, 14 lechas out of the aforesaid 13 bighas, 1 katha, 11 lechas of patta land. 3. The respondent no. 6 had issued an order dated 19.11.2009 whereby, it has been alleged that land records have been manipulated and the entire patta land of 13 bighas, 1 katha, 11 lechas pertaining to Dag No. 13 was termed as Sarkari and reserved in the name of railway as acquired land of railway. It is contended that there were no documents for such order to be passed by correcting the Jamabandi. The petitioners had approached the respondent no. 4 and a hearing had accordingly taken place on 21.12.2009, however, no action was taken to redress the grievance of the petitioners. It is also the case of the petitioners that some of the similarly situated persons had filed Title Suit No.100/1999 which was decreed vide the judgment and decree dated 20.07.2001 declaring right, title and interest in favour of 14 such similarly situated persons. The approach to this court was on the apprehension that the petitioners could learn that the Railways were contemplating to evict the petitioners out of their respective plots by way of eviction. 4. I have heard Sri MK Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri M Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri A Barkataki, learned Standing Counsel, Railways. I have also heard Shri SS Roy, learned State Counsel, Assam as well as Ms. PR Mahanta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, Assam. 5. Shri Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the positions of the petitioners are identical to those who had filed Title Suit No. 100/1999. I have also heard Shri SS Roy, learned State Counsel, Assam as well as Ms. PR Mahanta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, Assam. 5. Shri Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the positions of the petitioners are identical to those who had filed Title Suit No. 100/1999. By drawing the attention of this Court to the judgment and decree dated 20.07.2001, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the competent Civil Court had clearly passed the decree confirming the right, title and interest of those persons over the land in question. He has also informed that though an appeal was filed by the Railways, the same was dismissed for default. Subsequently, this Court had passed an order dated 29.04.2008 in CRP/97/2008 whereby, the matter was remitted for a fresh consideration. The matter had accordingly reached this Court in WP(C)/1553/2017 which was disposed of by this Court vide the judgment and order dated 15.11.2023 and the following directions were given: “I. The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup Metro is directed to demarcate the 4 bighas, 0 kathas, 3 lechas covered by NK Patta No.1 (old), 7 (new), 8, 9, 1 and 3 Dag No.13 (old), 581, 582, 583, 584, 585, 586, 596, 598, 54/55, 43, 18, 34, 33, 54/59 (new) of village North Jalukbari under Jalukbari Mouza in the district of Kamrup Metro within 60 days from the date a certified copy of the instant judgment is served upon the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup Metro. II. Upon such demarcation being carried out and the land measuring 4 bighas, 0 kathas, 3 lechas covered by NK Patta No.1 (old), 7 (new), 8, 9, 1 and 3 Dag No.13 (old), 581, 582, 583, 584, 585, 586, 596, 598, 54/55, 43, 18, 34, 33, 54/59 (new) of village North Jalukbari under Jalukbari Mouza in the district of Kamrup Metro being specifically identified the respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall not interfere with the possession in respect to the said land till such time the said decree is not set aside in accordance with law. III. In respect to the other lands, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall be at liberty to take such action as permissible under law.” 6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners in that case were the plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 100/2019 and therefore, a similar benefit is entitled to by the instant petitioners. III. In respect to the other lands, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall be at liberty to take such action as permissible under law.” 6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners in that case were the plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 100/2019 and therefore, a similar benefit is entitled to by the instant petitioners. He has also informed that against the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Railways, the petitioners had filed reply affidavit, including response to an additional-affidavit filed on 13.03.2025. He accordingly submits that the writ petition be allowed and the Railways be restricted from carrying out any eviction process. 7. Per Contra, Sri Barkataki, learned Standing Counsel, Railways has strenuously opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that way back in the year 1959, the land was acquired for Railways and payments were made to all the landowners and possession was accordingly handed over to the Railways. Such acquisition was made mainly for the purpose of having the approach road to the Saraighat bridge. However, in the year 1999 due to inadvertence the said land was converted to Government land. The matter was accordingly taken up before the appropriate authorities by the Railways and subsequently, it was reconverted in the name of the Railways. By drawing the attention of this Court to the additional-affidavit filed by the Railways on 13.03.2025, the learned Standing Counsel has referred to the notification of such acquisition. To a pointed query made by this Court, the learned Standing Counsel, Railways has submitted that the land, which was acquired in the year 1959, was still the requirement of the Railways inasmuch, as a new bridge is coming up with a double line. He, accordingly submits that no rights of the petitioners have been able to be established and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Endorsing the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel, Railways, Shri Roy, the learned State Counsel, Assam appearing for the District Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner has submitted that the respondent no. 4 has filed an affidavit in opposition on 20.06.2024. By drawing the attention of this Court to the averments made in paragraph 8 of the said affidavit, the learned State Counsel has submitted that no rights of the petitioners are infringed as they did not have any right, title or interest over the land in question which was acquired for the Railways. By drawing the attention of this Court to the averments made in paragraph 8 of the said affidavit, the learned State Counsel has submitted that no rights of the petitioners are infringed as they did not have any right, title or interest over the land in question which was acquired for the Railways. For ready reference, the averments made in paragraph 8 are extracted hereinbelow: “8. That with regard to the averments made in paragraphs-8 to 10 of the writ petition, the deponent begs to state that the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup Metropolitan District communicated a letter vide no. KRA.10/Pt./2009/271 dated 26-07-2009 to the Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Revenue & Disaster Management Department, Dispur, Guwahati 6, seeking a view for correction of land records in favour of NF Railway/PWD (NH) in village Uttar Jalukbari under mouza Jalukbari (erstwhile Ramcharani mouza) in Kamrup Metropolitan District. In para 7 of the communication letter it was stated 'As per Draft record of 1957-64 the status of the land covered by Dag No, 178(01d), 13(New) with an area of 60B- 2K-7Ls was 'Nisf-Khiraj" (half revenue paying estate) with clear 'Nisf- Kheraj' boundary symbol printed in the Map. During current Guwahati resettlement operation, record has been corrected showing a plot of land measuring 13B-lK- lLs as Kheraj Myadi Patta Land covered by Dag No, 13(Ka) under K.P. Patta No. 109 while the balance land of part 'Kha' of Dag No. 13 measuring 47B-OK- 16Ls has been shown as Railway acquired Govt, land by putting it under a new dag no 269 reportedly in terms of order of the Deputy Commissioner vide No.KRA. 10/2000/305/12 dtd.28/02/01. Since the entire land measuring 105B- IK-0Ls of Uttar Jalukbari village covered by Dag No. 191, 192, 193 Pt, 195, 196, 197 Pt., 200 Pt., 204, 206. 208, 209, 210. 211, 449, 470, 491 Pt., 547, 551. 559, 177, 178Pt.,) 179Pt., 180Pt., 181Pt, 182, 183, 184 Pt, 185, 186, 187 Pt, 188 Pt. 189 Pt., 190 Pt. were acquired for NF Railway on payment of L.A. compensation to the recorded Pattadars and land having been made acquired Govt. land, no Patta land what so ever can exists out of the acquired land measuring 105B-1K-0L. The correction of land record to the effect of creating Patta No. 109 with Dag No. 13(Ka) containing a part of the acquired Govt. land, no Patta land what so ever can exists out of the acquired land measuring 105B-1K-0L. The correction of land record to the effect of creating Patta No. 109 with Dag No. 13(Ka) containing a part of the acquired Govt. land measuring 13B-1K-1I Ls is absolutely incorrect and needs to be cancelled.' In response to the letter communicated vide no. KRA.10/Pt./2009/271 dated 24-07-2009, the Deputy Secretary Govt. of Assam, Revenue & Disaster Management Department, Dispur, Guwahati 6, gave an approval to correct the land records as per land acquisition case of Railway and PWD (NH) observing rules and procedures vide letter no. RSS/523/2009/31 dated 31-10-2009. Accordingly Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup Metropolitan District directed the Settlement Officer, Guwahati Re settlement operation, Ulubari Guwahati 7 to correct the land record vide letter no. KRA.10/2000/Pt./688 dated 10-11-2009. Accordingly the land record was corrected to Government land.” 9. The learned State Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the communication dated 10.11.2009 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) to the Settlement Officer, Ulubari whereby, a request was made to effect correction of records of the land acquired in LA Case No. Railway Acquisition XII/21/59 and LA Case No.80/60 in favour of the NF Railway/PWD (NH) in village Uttar Jalukbari/Sadipalur under Jalukbari Mouza. Shri Roy, learned State Counsel has also referred to the remarks appearing in the Jamabandi which reads as follows: “Remarks: (Ka)…………………………… (Kha) per order dated 18.04.1999 Dassed by the Govt. of Assam vide letter No.RSS 76/99/609 and land measuring 64 Bighas 1 Katha 6 lechas pertaining to this Patta has been converted from Nikhi Khiraj Order of Settlement officer dated 10.05. 1999 passed vide letter NO. SOGR 13/98 Misc 1502-8 the total land measuring 64 Bighas 1 Katha 6 lechas pertaining to this Patta has been converted from nikhi Khiraj land to Khiraj Periodic Patta land vide K.P. Patta No. 109. 1999 passed vide letter NO. SOGR 13/98 Misc 1502-8 the total land measuring 64 Bighas 1 Katha 6 lechas pertaining to this Patta has been converted from nikhi Khiraj land to Khiraj Periodic Patta land vide K.P. Patta No. 109. (Ga) As per order dated 28.02.2001 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup in letter No. KRA10/2000/305-12 and orders of Settlememt Oficer dated 16/02/2001 and 01/03/2001 passed in file Nos.437 and 4790 respectively the land measuring 47 bigha 16 lechas pertaining to Dag No.13 of KP K.P. Patta No.109 (old Nikhi Khiraj Patta No.1) has been made sarkari under Dag NG.269(kha) (Gha) As per Order / letter No. SOGR 138/09 of the Settlement Officer dated 19.11.09, Order of Deputy Commissioner vide letter No. KRA/10/2000/PT/688 dated 10.11.2009 passed in pursuance to the Order of the Govt. of Assam vide letter No. RSS 523/2009/32 dated 06.11.2009 the total land measuring 13 Bighas 1 Katha 13 Lechas pertaining to Dag NO. 13 of this patta has been made sarkari and reversed in the name of Railway as the same is shown as acquired land in the name of Railway vide L.A. case No. Railway Acquisition XII/21/59.” 10. The learned State Counsel, accordingly submits that the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials on records carefully examined. 12. The petitioners have staked their claim over the land in question on the strength of certain purchases alleged to have been made from the owners of the land in question. It, however, transpires from the records placed before this Court that the land in question was acquired for Railways in the year 1959 and the documents placed on record would also show that not only payments were made but possession was handed over. It also transpires that in the year 1999, the land was inadvertently converted to Government land which was, however, reconverted to Railway land as would be evident from the document mentioned above. It, therefore, appears that the alleged purchases made by the petitioners were only the possessory right from the vendors who were not the owners but encroachers of Railway land. 13. As noted above, the requirement of the land by the Railways is still there as a new bridge is coming up besides the existing Saraighat bridge over the river Brahmaputra. 14. 13. As noted above, the requirement of the land by the Railways is still there as a new bridge is coming up besides the existing Saraighat bridge over the river Brahmaputra. 14. It would, therefore, be required for this Court to examine the aspect in the context of the decree passed in Title Suit No. 100/1999. The aforesaid title suit appears to have been instituted by similarly situated persons in which a decree was passed. The petitioners, however, were not parties in the said title suit which was disposed of in the year 2001. It also appears that though an appeal was filed, the same was dismissed for default and thereafter CRP/97/2008 was filed which was disposed of by remitting the matter for a fresh consideration by this Court, vide order dated 29.04.2008. The plaintiffs in the said case had also instituted WP(C)/1553/2017 and the same was disposed of vide judgment dated 15.11.2023, the directions of which have already been extracted above. In the said judgment, this Court had categorically directed that unless the decree passed in the Civil Court was set aside, no action of eviction can be taken. The decree in the aforesaid title suit is a decree in personam and cannot be construed to be a decree in rem. In any case, the present petitioners were not the parties in the aforesaid title suit and therefore, it cannot be said that without instituting a suit, the same relief would be entitled by the petitioners. After all, the petitioners have to establish their own case by adducing appropriate evidence in the Court of law. This Court has also noticed that though vide an order dated 22.06.2017, an interim order was passed, in this case, vide the subsequent order dated 21.01.2021, the matter was adjourned and there was no extension of the interim order which was for a period of 4 weeks. 15. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no substantial relief can be granted to the petitioners and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioners are, however, given liberty to approach the appropriate Civil Court which has to be done strictly in accordance with law.